1) I don't understand why the Sanhedrin ruled that Herod was not eligible to be a king because a king must be "achicha." Herod had the din of an Eved Knaani, and also even if he had been a regular Jew he would not have a had the din of a king anyway since the halacha applies only to a king who is anointed by a navi or a descendant of such a king, and even the Hashmonaim did not have a din of melech.
So why would this subject have even arisen where he in any case was simply the appointed leader of the official ruler of Eretz Yisroel which was Rome.
2) How do we understand that he was a slave if he married Miriam who was from the Chashmonaim? Presumably he would have known that no one could marry a bas-kohen unless they were proper Jews.
David Goldman, USA
Hello there and thanks for your interesting questions. I am not discussing whether or not the Chashmonaim had the status of kings, but I will try to answer your questions.
1) There are different aspects to discuss here. Appointment of a king indeed requires a descendant of David Hamelech. This of course does not apply to other appointments. The restriction of appointing Geirim applies to any position as the Rambam rules in Hilchos Melachim 1:4. I don't really think that the Sanhedrin had a meeting regarding the status of Herod, and decided to nix him. Herod realized though that the Chachamim will never accept him as a king, or even as a leader without the status of a king, for the reason I mentioned above. This would mean that if halachic questions came to the Sanhedrin in which Herod's status was a factor, his status would be considered illegal. This could also mean that they might try to convince the Romans to replace him.
2) Herod probably viewed himself as a freed slave who is permitted to marry a Bas Choen. See Rambam Isurei Bi'ah (19:11). The Chachamim treated him as a full-fledged slave. This could be dependant on the question if a slave who the owner was Mafkir requires a Get Shichrur or not (see Gitin 40a).
All the best,
Y. Landy
Thank you for your interesting reply.
1) In your response #1, I am not sure I understand why in invalidating Herod the chachamim would have had to resort to the issue of achicha, since he still could not have been a halachic king even if he were not a slave.
2) In your #2 response do you mean that Hyrkanus the king must have held that a freed slave (i.e. "former slave") would be kosher to marry his granddaughter, a bas-kohen, and that Herod was "mufkar" although he had no individual master because the Edomites were slaves of the melucha in general?
David Goldman
Dear David
Hello again and thanks for your questions.
1) Once again, there is an issue of a king, who must belong to Beis David, and there are other positions open to all Jews. A convert, however, is ineligible for any public position. Perhaps this is why Herod referred to the Pasuk "Mikerev Achecha", since this is the Pasuk which the Chachamim would have used to ban him from any public office, even if he did not have the status of a king. This is not necessarily the simple Pshat in the Pasuk, but rather Torah shebe'Al Peh, which is why Herod poured out his wrath on the Chachamim. (See Tosfos Bava Basra 3b DH Kol d'Amar, DH Man Darish, who offers his explanation for quoting this Pasuk.)
2) As I quoted the Rambam, a freed slave may marry a Bas Kohen. I'm not sure how you determine who Herod's owner was. The Gemara says that he belonged to the Chashmonai family. Once again, a possibility is that he was freed, but without a Get Shichrur. Also see Tosfos at the end of Avodah Zarah. Another possibility is that he claimed that he had been freed, but this was not the case. If Miryam would have agreed to marry him, she would have freed him. She, however, chose not to marry him, and thus declared that he remained a slave.
All the best.
Y. Landy